New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-09-27

R.uresa comp.nx to the rsnSIss mich vs s:
essa:ss:a :. 3. Ss.sd.ai y ssas M; y
.s,s u he .ssmsny ne ,S, ,ss csy sparsa
% y a Is % va.
hsess ms sn says NO on paw OF
In regard to the other objections the judge says that
they arise upon exreptfons aRcn 20 'he cnarkc vi 0
| Judge presiding at the trial. and adds:
It's not requisite that they should be examined fully IN d
they nsss no, the
| ating Fuilgraf The Judge says;
ordinarily other mode in which the commission
Very liberty justly allowed in making tho proof ~
mote bearing upon the probaStv Of the truth charge
And Il v. sssed In the form o. c peef
action The test whether me parties ss
particular cimins rs.nit And when that probability has
of tner contributing 10 that end
THE EVIDENCE WARRANTED THE CONVICTION.
In conclusion Justice Daniels says:
interfering result By the judsmens The
cn 20 sssbsn was proved IN saen %anser rem
der tie sublscto me doedants guilt within The province
ana ~ no legal errors neryensi 70 h. reue
% The e: s q in
10 the appeal aod which by the practise are
sas evidence has been gwen win all iis great details
h. it only .ufoIsn, but that the Jury
right drawing and Acng upon the conclusion which Loy
Both Judgment and the intermediate oiers included In
the appeal s6oIid there ore be affirmed.
- THE PRESIDING JUDGE CoNCURs
Presiding Judge Van Brunt, in concurring with "the
able and exhaustive opinion OF Mr.. Justice Daniels"
says:
It cs.ped by the defendant that he had not been
s1s ol 1 AN v mo- MEANS n
PENDANT particular juror should
isnss p III sss sS .%psss%
Upon an examination Of The upon these
@ a 70 R!ns % s hH
was Withdraw that as to Two Of the sr"Ts slSn
ruling and that e one Juror only Was
reading sS sta inaton Of this juror II viii be
ss 9a at S "
The Judge declares that the defendants counsel did
not avail themselves of the right TO peremptory chal
lengs OF juror they must have regarded him as en-
Another objection is thus disposed of:
bad been charged indictment with conspiracy
w eony me- % BE- s seen Tr s Ia.
weight the dele iiant MOI beins tired toI
ns;%ea, AND snsher dfersnt
eison q these Tor The sas'ns the an
Ia. u object the case WON'T nav. been reevea @ os
but a matter Of form.
The Judge gives history OF the organization Of the
surface Railroad COMPANY. In speaking of
ths action OF the Board of Aldermen in authorizing the
chanDu through wileh defendant and his associates
made their cations TO the combining Aldermen
Afer reviewing PROVISIONS tns Al"
various statutes relating TO bribery the dge says IN co
,fusfon
whatsr existed NJ tins Of the
Of the poipts rassd these sppeAs they
entirely dfss4pated nnai0n OF the
having before tm the cham OF
evidence scented 0v this rrcor wers lust
creienee 10 te tsstnoIy OF Fulirrsh
Aldermen had been actually Oribe coming 70 the
,onciusiO which they arrived
The Judgment ana orers appealed from should he affirmed
WHAT JUSTICES BRADY AND BARTLETT SAY
Justice Brays opinion Is short and and covers
,uy pages OF loosely written faoscap The points
ouched by him refer to the existence of combination
the Aldermen and whether sharp paid money TO them
or the franchise He SAYS:
The orer make manifest the charge that
Aldermen had combined tO vote Tor the CONSENT
by fundamentally
With guilty knowledge presented evidences mat PROVED,
facts anil circumstances atrr the examination OF
which also designed TO
orrohorate hs satemcnt weakened as 10 bv hN con
he had The sukject committed deliberate
,erjufy.
Judge Brady says In referring the evidence Of Katie
ietz that ali accusations where concerted action II
Necessary TO accomplish the end. any evidence pre-
euted TO show thai such compact existed Ia adniss
de and proof OF facts and circumstances. which when
solated seem of little value when grouped present i'm
losing demonstration. AMI the Judge would not be sti
led In Withholding such testimony
Justice Bartletts brief opinion Il as follows:
members OF the Court In their
opinion Mr. Justice DanSss Think the |
for the prosecution required The submission oil the
Dy error detrimental the rights of tho defendant